• sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because they weren't the ones working the slaves to death in Caribbean plantations. Have you read any history?

    Also there were plenty of indigenous slaves taken, whole generations worked to death in mines to send silver back to europe

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          ·
          1 year ago

          ...for centuries if not millennia at quite low ROI and then Europeans came along with fancy ships and the capacity to conquer more fertile places earning quite a bit more dough per slave.

          As said: The primary cause of Europe's wealth is early technological development, at scale, and in breadth, enabled because lots of food could be produced with comparatively small workforce.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              ·
              1 year ago

              Where, precisely, did I excuse that behaviour?

              Really the reading comprehension among hexbears is at disappointing levels. Too much circle-jerking in isolation, I guess, rots the brain.

          • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, the europeans showed up to profit-maximize the slavery process. That was the technological innovation, the boats helped, but the main part of the equation was translating huge amounts of human suffering into money, and then re-investing it. You're hyping up Europeans technology up a little too much, chauvinists tend to. Europe was a plague-ridden backwater for centuries before they opted to sacrifice endless humans to Moloch. They "invented" all sorts of science to tell themselves it was the 'natural order'.

            Based on how you're responding you do think this is a good thing though and are giving it positive spin.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              ·
              1 year ago

              I'm merely saying how things are, why Europe was in the position it was, why it has the edge it has. You know, material realism.

              • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, and that's why I point out that it's silly to say 'these are both colonial empires' when one has had two major changes in government since then, and affected far fewer people. Unless you're trying to be essentialist about Russians as colonizers or something it makes no sense.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Have you ever talked to, say, an Estonian? Muscovy colonised, the Russian Empire colonised, the USSR colonised, the Russian federation... tries to colonise.

                  Also you're the only one talking about the US, here. IDGAF categorise them as lizard people for all I care.

                  • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Also you're the only one talking about the US, here.

                    They're the other major party in the proxy war? The EU is a junior partner at this point.

                    There's plenty of examples of horrific British, French Spanish colonization, the Dutch are responsible for inventing the triangle trade of slaves to the Americas (with the profits going to Europe, hence triangle) in the first place. Some of those have actually had governments change since then too.

                    The US gets brought up because it's the global hegemon, driving so much of these political tensions. You don't get to pretend its blood-soaked record doesn't exist lmao.

                    • barsoap@lemm.ee
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      A proxy war? Who is using Russia as a proxy? Words have meanings, you know. This is a war of conquest, and a very direct one at that. You can tell by how the aggressor has already legally (as in "Russian law", not "international law") incorporated parts of the defendant's territory into itself.

                      Also there's exactly two reasons why the US is in this: a) glee at Russia willingly running into another Afghanistan and b) because Europe is. The US can't countenance the impression that Europe does military things without it but if Trump were to be elected tomorrow and turned the country to isolationism European support for Ukraine would stand fast.

                      • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]
                        ·
                        1 year ago

                        Words have meanings, you know. This is a war of conquest, and a very direct one at that.

                        lmao, one sentence later. There's already plenty of precedent for unilateral secession, the EU made it clear it was okay with that when it was Serbia, why are you raising a stink now?

                        why the US is in this: a) glee at Russia willingly running into another Afghanistan and b) because Europe is.

                        sounds like a proxy war to me, and if the US pulled out they would not have any ammunition, it's only viable because of US support right now.

                        • barsoap@lemm.ee
                          ·
                          1 year ago

                          There’s already plenty of precedent for unilateral secession, the EU made it clear it was okay with that when it was Serbia, why are you raising a stink now?

                          Kosovo's secession wasn't unilateral, it was NATO-backed. Also, it followed a genocide I think I already told you that can't be arsed to go back and have a look at which hexbear I educated on that particular topic.

                          sounds like a proxy war to me, and if the US pulled out they would not have any ammunition,

                          The US has stocks but they don't have production capacity. Well, at least not nearly enough.

                          • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]
                            ·
                            edit-2
                            1 year ago

                            Kosovo's secession wasn't unilateral, it was NATO-backed. Also, it followed a genocide I think I already told you that can't be arsed to go back and have a look at which hexbear I educated on that particular topic.

                            It was not including voting from the rest of the country of Serbia, that's what unilateral means jfc. Also the west only 'cares' about muslim life when it's time to use them as an pretext for intervention they wanted to do anyways, same with how they suddenly care about uyghers now.

                            There were documented examples of Romani having to pretend to be kosovar albanians to flee the NATO bombing because there was no resources made available for any other minority ethnic group.

                            The whole NATO backed dismantling of yugoslavia was criminal

                            The US has stocks but they don't have production capacity. Well, at least not nearly enough.

                            Yes I know, that's why they should stop getting Ukranians killed and pull all support.